Spain and Australia: the parallels

The tactics of the pro-war crowd who’ve hung in there knowing we were lied to and watching a war about to enter its second year never change. The Spanish people are now appeasers, as is everyone else who opposed the war for what turned out to be bloody good reasons and now want the UN to take over as quickly as possible to end the US/British/Australian occupation.

Please have a read of New Spanish government a circuit breaker on Iraq by new Webdiarist Sam Guthrie. And please, Miranda Devine and co, accept that we all want to fight terrorism. Some of us, though, don’t believe we can do so when governed by liars and spinmeisters who we can’t bloody trust and who mow down people we feel we can trust.

A colleague sent me a great email today:

“I get the feeling there's a great many people out there who really object to this issue being politicised at all. Did you read the Lateline transcript of Tony Jones's interview with Downer? Downer's pathetic waffle was a real object lesson in what happens when politicians think they can take people for complete fools. It would be worth a piece on whether the "art" of evasion is at all helpful when the world is witnessing the true horror of commuter trains being blown up by backpacks containing bombs triggered by mobile phone detonators. When that happens don't we all expect our politicians (and journos) to get serious and coalitioned rather than point-scoring?”

In yesterday's feedback Webdiary Spain aftershock: your say, several Webdiarists accused me of writing things I did not write, so I thought I’d make my position crystal clear. It is the same as that of Michigan history professor and Iraq expert Juan Cole, whose blog is a must-read on Iraq and its consequences. He wrote, on March 16, in part:

Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections? This silly question is being asked by billionaire Rupert Murdoch's and Conrad Black's media outlets all over the world in blazing headlines. For some strange reason, the billionaires aren't happy that the Socialist Workers' Party won the elections in Spain, and are trying to portray the outcome as cowardice on the part of the Spanish public.

The entire argument is specious from beginning to end. First of all, the Iraq war had nothing to do with the battle against al-Qaeda. Nothing whatsoever. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and others were pressing for a war against Iraq in the 1990s before al-Qaeda had even become much of a threat to the US... Jose Maria Aznar, in supporting Bush on the war against Iraq, was not standing up to al-Qaeda.

I believe that the Spanish public just recognized the correctness of the "opportunity cost" argument about the Iraq War and anti-terrorism efforts. Let's say you are in business. If you put your capital, which is limited, into expanding one part of your business ("X"), you may make money - say 7% percent on your investment. But you had another opportunity to put your money into expanding a different part of the business ("Y"), and that would have given you a 25% percent return (which you did not know at the time). Giving up the 25% return is an opportunity cost of doing X rather than Y.

The Iraq War represents an enormous opportunity cost in the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and its constituents. After the Afghanistan War, the Bush administration forgot to ask Congress for any money for Afghanistan reconstruction, and Congress helpfully put in $300 million. This year, the Bush administration will put $1 billion into Afghanistan, an immense country devastated by 25 years of war (for which the US bears some responsibility), in which the Taliban is having a resurgence...

Since the end of the Afghanistan War, al-Qaeda has struck at Mombasa, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and elsewhere. Some chatter suggested that Ayman al-Zawahiri himself ordered the hit on Istanbul. The attack on a Spanish cultural center in Casablanca in May of 2003 now appears to have been a harbinger of the horrible Madrid train bombings last week. How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca? How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?

Instead of dealing with this growing and world-wide threat, the Bush administration cynically took advantage of the American public's anger and fear after September 11 and channeled it against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which had had nothing to do with September 11 and which never could be involved in such a terrorist operation on American soil because its high officers knew exactly the retribution that would be visited on them. Only an asymmetrical organization could think of a September 11, because it has no exact return address...

The Iraq adventure is likely to have cost the US nearly $250 billion by next year this time. The US is no safer now than it was before the Iraq war, since Iraq did not have any weapons that could hit US soil and would not have risked using them even if it did.

Let me repeat that. Maybe $1.3 billion for Afghanistan. $250 billion for Iraq. Bin Laden and his supporters are in Afghanistan. What is wrong with this picture?

There is not and cannot be such a thing as a "war on terror." Terror is a tactic. There can be a global counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred organizations. But a large part of such a struggle must be to deny al-Qaeda recruitment tools and propaganda victories. The way the Bush administration pursued the war against Iraq, as a superpower-led act of Nietzschean will to power, simply made it look in the Middle East as though al-Qaeda had been right. Bin Laden's message was that Middle Easterners are being colonized and occupied by the United States.

There is no evidence at all that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from a counter-insurgency effort against al-Qaeda. The evidence is only that they became convinced that the war on Iraq had detracted from that effort rather than contributing to it. This is not a cowardly conclusion and it is not a victory for al-Qaeda...

Here is what Zapatero said about all this, according to the Washington Post:

”The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster," Zapatero told a radio interviewer. At a news conference later, he called the Iraq war "an error." He added, "It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed." He pledged to continue to combat international terrorism, but said the fight should be conducted with "a grand alliance" of democracies and not through "unilateral wars," a clear reference to Iraq.”…

Here's my rough rendering of Zapatero's full statement, which Fox Cable News will not read out in its entirety:

"Tonight I commit myself to commence a tranquil government and I assure you that power is not going to change me," affirmed Zapatero between the applause of hundreds of people who congregated to celebrate the triumph.

"My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism (Mi prioridad mas inmediata es combatir toda forma de terrorismo). And my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it."

After defining himself as "prepared to assume the responsibility to form the new government", Zapatero described his priorities.

"I will set out to strengthen the prestige of democratic institutions . . . to move Spain into the vanguard of European development and to guide myself by the Constitution at every moment"

"The government of change," he added "will act from the dialogue, responsibility and transparency. It will be a government that will work by cohesion, concord and peace."

After nearly four years of White House rhetoric stolen from old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, the determination in this speech to pursue anti-terrorism with an eye to establishing social peace and creating the conditions of human development hits me as a gale of fresh air.

So this is what al-Qaeda was going for with the train bombs? To create a "grand alliance" of democracies against it? Zapatero's speech is a victory for Bin Laden?

No, it is a defeat only for the Bush administration and the Neoconservative philosophy of Perpetual War…

With the secession of Spain from the "coalition of the willing," the rug has been pulled out from under the Bush doctrine of preemption, the Bush commitment to US military action without a proper UNSC resolution, and the Bush conviction that you can fool all the people all the time. Since Bush administration militarism and desire to go about overthrowing most of the governments in the Middle East actually was highly destabilizing and created enormous numbers of potential recruits for al-Qaeda, the Spanish actions are a great victory for the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda.

Webdiarist Luke Stegemann, a former resident of Spain now lecturing in Osaka, would also like to set a few records straight. He sees parallels between Australian and Spanish politics:

As a long-term Australian resident of Spain and having just left the country after spending most of the election campaign there, I must comment on the deeply insulting - not to say patronising - attitude shown by those who suggest that the new Spanish government is there thanks to Al-Qaeda, and that this is somehow a ‘victory for terrorism’.

This misguided view implies that the previous government is to be absolved of responsibility for its authoritarianism and highly divisive means of ruling the country. Anybody familiar with Spanish politics would have known that the country was ripe for change. The Spanish participation in the war in Iraq against the vast majority of people’s wishes was one of many reasons the Spaniards wished to change their government.

The new Spanish government was elected by the Spanish people through a transparent and democratic process. They'd had enough of a highly centrist and hard-right party. As far as the majority of Spaniards are concerned (and I’ve spoken to quite a few since the election result), the election was a victory for democracy, not terrorism. And isn't the protection - or promotion - of democracy what the whole "war on terror" is about?

There are a number of striking parallels between the rise and fall and political hue of elected governments in Australia and Spain going back to the early 1980s. If the trend is to continue, there are some clear pointers to the national election later this year.

For the purposes of this comparison we can equate quite closely, in terms of ideology and political practice, the Australian ALP and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the Liberal Party and Spain’s conservative Partido Popular (PP).

In 1982, the PSOE swept to power as the first Socialist government since the days of the Civil War under the leadership of Felipe Gonzalez. This was mirrored the following year in Australia by the sweeping to power of the ALP under Bob Hawke in 1983 (notwithstanding the Whitlam years which look, in hindsight, like an historical and political aberration, despite the enormous social advances made in those three short years).

The PSOE ruled until 1996, increasingly alienated from its traditional support base as economic rationalism came to exert its grip on models of governance, and beset by corruption scandals. The ALP also held power until 1996.

In Spain, where elections are held every 4 years rather than our 3, the PSOE was widely tipped to lose power in 1992, until Felipe Gonzalez won an ‘unwinnable election’ to take one more term, as did Paul Keating the following year in Australia. It was to be the final term for both parties.

The Spanish PSOE and the Australian ALP then went into the political wilderness as more right-wing governments took over. The Liberal Party under John Howard and the PP under Jose Maria Aznar came resoundingly to power on the same weekend in March, 1996.

The similarities between Aznar and Howard were both physical (small men who punched well above their weight) and ideological: neo-conservative, authoritarian, masters of the wedge, and so on.

Last year, Aznar and Howard stood shoulder to shoulder with Blair and Bush though curiously, while in Australia those opposed to the war or the ‘coalition of the willing’ talk of the triumvirate of Bush-Blair-Howard (with no mention of Aznar), in Spain, where popular opposition to the war was even stronger than in Australia, everyone talks of the ‘assassins’ Bush-Blair-Aznar – no-one has even heard of Howard!

A significant difference, and what may be more telling as time goes on, is that last year Aznar decided to step down and personally appointed his successor, Mariano Rajoy, as part of a generational change Howard has pointedly refused to entertain.

At the same time, the Spanish PSOE fielded their young leader, a fresh-faced 43 year-old (I know Mark Latham may not be fresh-faced, but does it sound familiar?) It is very easy to see the parallels continue between the two countries, with Mark Latham coming to power later this year on a wave of public frustration with intolerance and unadulterated spin, just as ‘bambi’ Zapatero (as he is known) has taken the Spanish election.

Of course, the Australian elections – one hopes – will not take place against a background of near civil unrest such as was brewing on the streets of Spain last Saturday, as the PP continued in its fervent efforts to pin blame for the atrocity on ETA despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I was told by my Spanish wife (who was in the middle of it all) that such tension had not been felt on the streets of Spain since the aborted military coup of February, 1983, when gunmen opened fire in the National Parliament and the tanks rolled onto the streets of Valencia.

Now we see that Pedro Almodovar is in hot water for making this very claim – that the country was close to a coup d’etat last Saturday evening. Yet even if we do go to vote, as expected and hoped, under very different conditions, the Australian people have more than enough reasons to cry, as the Spanish people have done in a different context, “Enough is enough”.

Since the last election, the children overboard affair and the war in Iraq are but two instances of appalling spin that one hopes will come back to haunt the Howard government and, like Spain’s conservatives, they will be made to pay for their contemptuous treatment of the general public by being thrown out of government. The argument of a good economic record will have nothing to do with it.

If Mark Latham and the ALP are elected to power later this year, the political nature of the respective governments in Madrid and Canberra will carry on in curious parallel, even after 22 years. And if Latham does win, let’s hope that no-one is contemptuous enough of the will of the Australian people to claim it as a ‘victory for Al-Qaeda’.

Tonight, the Webdiary debate began last night rages on. Here’s what you say.

Peter Woodforde: Australia's police chiefs have, for a variety of plausible reasons, sought to expand powers of detention without trial or charges. That may be all very well, but given the recent demonstration of ruthless impropriety toward Federal Police chief Keelty by the PM's murky private office, just who would wield the increased powers? The Keelty episode has shown once again the worryingly furtive and Kremlinesque atmosphere of the PM's private office, and cut public trust in the independence of statutory office-holders.

Marcus Paul: Reading your Webdiary lately, it is easy to observe one particular strand of hopeful expectation in the comments on the war on Iraq, the terrorist bombing in Spain, any threat of terrorism in this country, and the various governmental deceits involved. A number of Webdiarists seem to hope that the Australian public will respond to the body of lies and half-truths that surround the Howard government's handling of these matters. I suggest that people have come to expect such deceit from the coalition. It might even be said to be a non-issue. It is only the more discursive media outlets such as the Sydney Morning Herald and your own Webdiary that exhibit an ongoing concern with John Howard's record on the truth. It is interesting to note that Mark Latham too has been conspicuously silent on these matters. He knows all to well that there is little electoral mileage to be had in criticising the coalition. Of course, should the worse happen and Sydney or any other Australian city falls prey to terrorist atrocity, the debate would be one which all Australians would have to engage with. Let us hope this is a future we never have to witness. We would no doubt respond very differently to the Spanish. For one thing, it is unlikely that the Labor Party could ride into government on any resentment at Australia's participation in the latest Gulf War, or any related rendering of Australia as a terrorist target.

Jim Stewart: Two readers cite Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero's: "Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can't organise a war with lies." Surely its time someone pointed his mistake. It’s an historical fact that not only can you organise a war with lies, but that to win wars (and elections) leaders need to be good liars! More important, since the spread of 'real time' mass media they need reporters and commentators to report their lies as if they are worth hearing. Imagine if all viewers ever heard on TV/radio was: Because we try to report only the truth, Alexander Downer/Mark Latham (or as appropriate) was asked to clarify or correct his confusing and public lies in his media statement but refused to do so and just changed the subject!

***

Michael Grimes, on debut

I've been an avid reader for some time, but I've never felt moved to write until now. What brought about the shift from observer to participant is the almost brutish crudity of the arguments of some of your right-wing correspondents, and their willful determination to misunderstand the nuances of the anti-Howard, anti-war arguments.

"This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more."

How simplistic is that? What room for manooeuvre does this kind of thinking give our policy-makers? If we simply assume away the root causes of terrorism, we are left with no option but to pursue a policy of all-out war, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far.

Mitchell Beston believes that:

"We are all targets. The only way to avoid terrorism, is to join Islam and renounce Western values and lifestyle."
What, exactly, are "Western values and lifestyle"? Given that Islam has existed for well over a thousand years, why has this kind of terrorism begun to surface only in recent decades? Why are there so many countries with "Western values and lifestyle" that don't appear to be of any interest to the terrorists?
His comment about "gutless Saddam-supporters" demonstrates just how divided a nation we have become under Howard. It is contemptuous in the extreme, and such comments make it almost impossible to respond in a civilised fashion.

The anonymous "HR" writes:

"If any legitimacy is placed on terrorism it wins and it breeds more terrorism. If at any stage we bow to it, it will breed."

Are we to infer that it's not breeding now? The logical extension of this argument is that the origins of terrorism lie in our failure to stand up to terrorism. What kind of nonsense is that? Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum.
I can almost hear the response already - that I am somehow making excuses for cold-blooded killers, that I am a "Saddam-supporter" or some other inexcusable crudity.

What can I say? I'm not doing either of these things. I'm making a pragmatic plea for understanding. We won't solve this problem until we understand it. Shaun, Mitchell and HR do not understand it. I don't either, but at least I'm trying. At least I'm approaching it as a problem that can be understood if we take the time and the trouble to face it honestly and courageously, look at our own role in generating these feelings in the Islamic world, and don't allow ourselves to be defeated by our baser instincts. That can only lead us into unending chaos and horror.

I do understand HR's fear. I do understand why we are all concerned about the escalation in terror attacks. I feel as vulnerable as anybody else. But it is imperative that we understand the reasons for it. Otherwise we are condemned to live in a world where it just goes on escalating.

Globally we are, in a sense, in the same situation as Israel. Before Sharon came to power, terror attacks were happening sporadically. In an effort to eradicate them completely, he has erected walls, destroyed homes, sidelined Arafat, attacked the cars and homes of known terrorists with rockets launched from helicopters, killing many civilians in the process, and generally engaged in an onslaught of unprecedented ferocity on the enemies of Israel. Terror attacks are now virtually a weekly phenomenon.

Is this what we want for the world?

***

Mick Dean in Springwood, NSW

'HR' says:

"I for one do trust the government. I trust the government because they are presenting an argument that makes much more sense than yours. I trust the government for they haven't misled me in the way people like you are continually trying to convince me that they have. In doing so you are the true misleaders."

I wonder where he/she was when the lies about 'children overboard' were brought to the public's attention - sounds like someone with selective hearing to me.

"WMDs were not found but this was not the only reason."

Well, actually it was, if HR listened to Johnny.

"The WMD reason is one we had to use to get the UN to do something about it because the UN is too weak to intervene in situations where a leader's tyranny is the reason for intervening."

So why didn't Johnny just say this? Too weak perhaps? Too scared of the political consequences? So much for "one has to base it on what is right." Hypocritical? Me?? Huh!

As for the line "Your argument basically says that it is right for terrorists to strike Spain for it's involvement in the Iraq war", that's as blinkered as the ludicrous argument that if you were against the war in Iraq then you support Saddam Hussein.

At least Shaun O'Brien had the balls to put his name to his critique - I didn't agree with it, but if you have something you want others to hear, then you should be prepared to put your name to it. Otherwise you might be accused of being gutless and not basing your actions on 'what is right'!

Reveal yourself "HR"!

***

Jane Macdonald

I agree with much of what Shaun O'Brien, Daniel Maurice, David Tester, Mike Lyvers, Mitchell Beston and HR said in Webdiary today. However, like Shaun O'Brien, I won't shed any tears when Howard resigns or is voted out.

But what would Latham and Labor offer as an alternative?? Honest politics? I don't think so.

And where are some PRAGMATIC policy ideas from the opposition on this increasing threat of terrorism? How about a look in Webdiary at how Costello is doing a great job of shadowing Latham and catching him out at any opportunity.

If only Howard hadn't been so 'power hungry' and handed over to Costello, we'd now be watching a fascinating contest between the two forty somethings rather than a stale and somewhat desperate Howard versus someone who appears to be a 'media darling' but who does not inspire me with confidence that he has the ability to do the job.

What sort of PM would Costello make if he ever gets the chance? (MARGO: I don’t think Costello could hold the mix of constituencies Howard has. I think the battlers would trust Latham more than Costello.)

***

Yutaka Yoshino

The lesson for the government from the Spanish election should be "saying it is so does not make it so". It is unfortunate that there is strong faith in the notion that reality is shaped by what is declared publicly, loudly and repeatedly. The serious confusion amongst those in power between spin and reality is furthered by a media with no sensitivity to the difference between the two.

The contortions in logic and rhetoric required to continue to deceive self and the populace, all for the maintenance of the alliance with the United States, is beginning to make the leaders appear utter fools.

Given November is not far away, it is time to start thinking clearly, if not to avoid future terrorist attacks, to regain a little self respect. It may not be too late to begin to distance Australia from Bush's failed war on terror.

Should Bush not be reelected there will be substantial changes to American behaviour. Should the unthinkable occur and Bush is reelected, there is even better reason to avoid becoming caught in the cross fire in a perpetual war.

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford

Robert Bosler’sThe Liberal Party: headed for oblivion? is superb. He distilled the essence of what is gnawing at millions of Australians as they see Howard and his cowed ad subservient cabinet ministers perverting and dismantling the Australian social system.

Listening to and reading the aggressive authoritarian rhetoric of Howard's supporters and apologists gives the impression that Howard has become a cult figure to his followers. I fully expect to see massive posters of Howard smiling paternalistically down on 'his' people in the near future.

Just as the victims of Stalin refused to see him as their persecutor, Howard’s followers are selectively blind. To them he is the personification of political perfection - he is their 'father', their protector in times of grave fear. To these deluded citizens Australia's problems are the fault of Howard 'haters' - along with greenies, feminists, unions, public school teachers, Aboriginals and middle eastern migrants, ad infinitum.

I get the uneasy feeling that if their 'Glorious Leader' were to give the right dog whistle in times of social duress, his blinded followers would turn on their own - and history is littered with examples.

***

Jenny Green

Although I think Shaun O’Brien is wrong to assert that Webdiary refuses to assess the alternatives on offer to the Howard government, his piece made me think about the duties we (the non-journos and non-pollies) owe to the democratic process.

Surely the first thing we owe to ourselves, and to our community, is to educate ourselves about the issues and events which raise such anger and resentment directed at the Howard government. It is not enough to go entirely by the pronouncements of politicians or the media of either side. We are all sick of being treated like credulous sheep by the current government et al – and I think the only thing which is going to change that is to make sure that we don’t waste time venting spleen at the expense of trying to understand exactly what is going on.

For instance, I find Shaun’s response “Should the invasion have happened? I really don’t know etc” irresponsible. An essential part of our civic duty is to debate and learn about the important issues of our community.

We have a duty to examine our own beliefs and decide where we stand, where our line in the sand is, and what we cannot accept. Otherwise our whining that the politicians don’t listen to us is just that – whining too late after the fact.

Any preliminary investigation of modern Iraq and the circumstances surrounding the war would have come up with one glaring fact – Saddam is Sunni, while the majority of Iraq is Shia. If the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq to free the country from Saddam’s tyranny and “grant” them democracy, majority rule would result in a government similar to that of Iran.

Think about it – why would the US go to such great lengths to replace Saddam with a sort of government it has named in the “the axis of evil”

O’Brien’s piece also contains the unthinking assumption that all problems in the middle east are a result of one issue – a clash between eastern and western culture. That Bali equals Madrid, equals 9/11 etc. We all should be better informed than that.

I’m sure most of us have read or heard the statements and speeches released by Al Qaeda, various militant organisations and prominent Muslim figures. Did we even try to understand what these people were saying were the reasons for much of the current strife? Or did we consider it all lies because it came from terrorists and others we consider simply as the enemy? How easy for us – and again, how irresponsible.

Anyone who has read a fraction of these statements could not help but notice two things – the Palestine issue is mentioned over and over and over again; and it seems clear that many people in this large chunk of the world feel that they are being treated as inferior to those in the west, that their concerns are not as important to the international community, that their way of life is considered inferior to ours.

To say this is simply the outpouring of evil men is saying that we want to shut our eyes and slyly give the nod to our politicians to dispose of these issues without reference to us in the way which best suits their purpose.

To be blunt, we haven’t got a chance of sorting out this mess unless we all make the effort to try and understand what’s going on before we rush to fight it. To demonise the “other side” in a conflict only leaves the path open for the same problems to happen again, and again, and again. Even the military are aware of this – the concept of studying your enemy is as old as history.

How many of us are aware that the Sari club in Bali did not allow local Balinese in as patrons? What does that say about the nature of the target?

How many of us understand the way sanctions across the middle east have affected the local population? What have the governments concerned and the people concerned said about this? Do you understand why? What do YOU think should happen?

Have you tried to imagine how horrific living in a camp in the territiories would be? Have you imagined what daily life in Jerusalem is like for those living under the constant threat of terrorist bombs?

Have you put yourself in the place of a resident of Baghdad in April 2003? What would it be like? Do you care?

O’Brien says that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with pre-war Iraq. I think he’s probably right. But if one thing is clear about Al Qaeda, it’s that they seek to take on all the perceived slights, all the criticisms, all the attacks on the Islamic nations, and wreak their own bloody, terrifying revenge.

The fact that this is evil does not make it less true. We must deal with this fact if we are to destroy terrorism. To pretend it’s not there is, on all of our parts, irresponsible. We must get over our cowardly “if I don’t acknowledge that it’s true, I can just dismiss it” response. That response is all about political posturing, and has nothing to do with the will and desire to do something about the current tragedy.

O’Brien says that allowing “people” to “thumb their noses” at the US is “bad for the world”. I cannot begin to describe how much the blind subservience, the unthinking unselfconsciousness of that statement frightens me. He negates the will and power of the people, and betrays a unconscious willingness to overrule them in the statement “Now it looks like a terrorist act can bring down a government”.

The people brought down the government, not the terrorists. To believe anything else makes a mockery of grassroots democracy, that thing we all say we prize so much we believe it should be imported to those who do not have it.

All these points have worrying implications for our communal integrity and willingness to seek a solution. But the icing on the cake is the statement “Local politics are clouding the whole problem in dealing with these terrorists”.

The Islamic community is divided within itself in ways we do not want to learn about, each with a history we can’t be bothered to investigate. Until we have the guts to accept that local politics, as well as international actions, are the cause of the problem, our breathtaking arrogance will ensure that our children, and our children’s children will inherit a world permanently at war.

Our refusal to legalise the death penalty is based on a belief that all human life is sacred, and that all human life is equal. We must stop this 'them against us' attitude and begin to see all the different players in this drama as our global community, whom we value as ourselves, and whom we want to help, for the common good of all.